From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache |
Date: | 2011-03-21 16:47:21 |
Message-ID: | 4D878119.9050700@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/21/11 3:24 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> 2-level caches work well for a variety of applications.
>
> I think 2-level caches with simple heuristics like "pin all the
> indexes" is unlikely to be helpful. At least it won't optimize the
> average case and I think that's been proven. It might be helpful for
> optimizing the worst-case which would reduce the standard deviation.
> Perhaps we're at the point now where that matters.
You're missing my point ... Postgres already *has* a 2-level cache:
shared_buffers and the FS cache. Anything we add to that will be adding
levels.
We already did that, actually, when we implemented ARC: effectively gave
PostgreSQL a 3-level cache. The results were not very good, although
the algorithm could be at fault there.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-21 17:04:46 | Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-21 16:39:24 | Re: Rectifying wrong Date outputs |